Talk:USS Lexington (CV-2)

Note-- discussion on class

Additional discussion on issues common to Lexington and her sister Saratoga can be found at the talk page for the class, Talk:Lexington class aircraft carrier. Kablammo 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't on topic here but i think that these pages need lists of the fighters that they opperated and when... there isn't a good link for that on wikipedia. the one that they have is woefuly innadequate.74.138.78.83 (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As a point, unlike the accusations of some Pearl Harbor conspiracists, the USS Lexington was NOT carrying fighters to Midway. The USS Enterprise delivered Marine F4F-3 Wildcat fighters to WWake Island. The Lexington was trying to deliver Marine SB2U-3 Vindicator scout-dive bombers. On occasion, both US and IJN dive bombers were used on anti-torpedo plane patrol, sometimes successfully, but they were never intended to operate as fighters normally. When the Lexington turned back, she carried them back to Pearl Harbor and they later made the trip to Midway by island hopping. As far as fighters, the USS Lexington strated the war with F2A-2/3 Buffaloes, flown by the "Fighting Chiefs" of VF-2, the USN squadron with enlisted pilots. Just beforee the raids on Japanese forces operating near New Guinea, the Lexington took aboard F4F-3 Wildcats.

Question regarding treaty tonnage

Which treaty caused limits to the tonnage of the ship? And it's not clear from the article whether the US "cheated" or whether there was some complex "tonnage borrowing" aspect of the (mysterious) treaty..

The washington naval treaty [[1]]

The text of this article suggests that there was evasion of the Washington Naval Treaty as the carrier is stated to have displaced 40,000 tons. The treaty limitation however is on "standard" displacement, not full load (including fuel). Is it contended that the ships in fact displaced 40,000 tons "at completion" at standard displacement, and if so, where is the authority? Kablammo 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC) The treaty also allowed the US to possess 135,000 T in carriers. The total tonnage of Langley, Lex, and Sara did not begin to approach that figure. So how is it that the ""savings" of tonnage [in Lex and Sara] allowed for the later construction of the Ranger" as now claimed? In fact it wasn't until USS Wasp (CV-7) that the US bumped up against the 135k limitation. I think the present text is wrong but I'll wait for input on this before changing it. Kablammo 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect text deleted. The treaty allowed these ships to displace 33,000 tons, and have an additional 3,000 tons added for deck and underwater protection [[2]]; hence the 36,000 ton displacement figure. [[3]] The USN and Jane's however continued to use the 33,000 ton figure. Kablammo 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Lexington class aircraft carrier for further discussion of these matters. Kablammo 17:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All armor on deck?

Can somebody explain how "the deck armor was heavily reinforced" if she was a carrier with an unarmored flight deck? Trekphiler 06:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK US carriers had their deck armor on the hangar level --Denniss 13:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Saratoga class carriers had their armored deck below the hanger deck, being the original lower armored deck when designed as battlecruisers. This was driven by the need to keep weights down in the hull to balance the weights of the hanger, flight deck and island/stack higher in the ship to maintain stability and reserve flotation due to torpedo or mine damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.39.41.2 (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

problem with numbers

something is not right with these numbers: designed displacement was 38,746 tons actual displacement was 49,000

designed speed 33.25 knots speed in service 34.82 knots

how did she manage to turn out 10,000 tons heavier than designed (??) and 1,5 knots faster? it doesn't make any sense. Loosmark (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a difference between standard displacement and full-load. Displacements also increased over time as ships were refitted and added to; most ships were heavier at the end of the war than at the start, with additional armament and crew to operate it. It is not unusual for vessels to develop power less than or in excess of design ratings; this class was fortunate in obtaining power levels over 15% higher than the 180,000 h.p. design rating. Kablammo (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

the article says this:

Design: 36,000 tons standard 38,746 tons Actual: 49,000 tons (1940) 50,000 tons (1942)

what is the second number 38,746? is that full-load displacement as designed? this is still very confusing and i find incredible she turned out more than 10,000 tons heavier. what kind of armanent did she get to make her so much havier? Loosmark (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ok this page explaines it all:

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_prewa.htm

38,746 tons was full load design displacement

Lexington was overhauled and modernized 1936 (light deck widened forward, general modernizations, 36 .50 cal AA added)

43,054 tons was full load in 1936 which means that the actual full load figure when completed was between those 2 numbers. however it is still not clear to me why is her actual displacement in this article listed as 49,000 tons in 1940. Loosmark (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Loosmark, good job on researching this. There may be no good source for the 49,000 estimate. If there isn't, feel free to substitute your source for a full load displacement at whatever date to which it's applicable. Any in-service figure is likely to be no more than a snapshot at a certain period of time.

The HazeGray source gives Saratoga's full-load at the end of war as 52,000t. Like all ships she was upgraded during the war with additional armament, electronics, etc. which also required additional crew— all adding to displacement. Lex was sunk three years earlier, so she likely was lighter. 49,000 may well be accurate, but a source would be needed. Kablammo (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

i tend to think that the 49000 displacement in 1940 is not correct because HazeGray mentiones there was no refit (after 1936) before the war and +6000 tons would means some major modification. i'll try to check in some books in library when i've more time. Loosmark (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

the earlier numbers may be the stated displacement. most of the "Treaty" carriers that resulted from the permission to use a battle cruiser had outragously large tonnages and sizes that were complicated by the fact that there were numberous loop holes in the official tonnage calculations, and IIRC for these ships they ammounted to 10,000 tonnes. (same with some of the japanese ships) these things were almost as large as the midway class which is part of why they were still front line carriers throughout most of the war.74.138.78.83 (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Standard displacement" was an international standard for measurement of a ship's size, agreed upon by treaty. The ship's magazines are half full of ammunition, and fuel bunkers half full of fuel, at standard displacement. Other editors' notes regarding addition of armament, radar equipment etc. are correct. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Standard displacement as defined by the Washington naval Treaty of 1922 is the displacement of the ship ready for war (ie. full ammunition load), but without fuel or reserve feed water. The US fought for this definition and it represented a major victory in the area of ship design. Previously ships were designed to a specific load displacement (All or 2/3 ammo, all, 2/3 or one-half fuel aboard, etc). Navies like the British with extensive bases or the Italian with no strategic responsibilities outside the Med, needed less fuel to conduct ops when compared to the USN and its War Plan Orange requirements to move from the Panama Canal or West Coast to Hawaii and then on through the Mandates to the Philippines. This weight was used by fuel in calculating load displacement. With the change to standard displacement, the USN suffered a minor disadvantage of having to design larger bunkers/tanks into its ships for the designed battle or full load. In a 35,000 ton battleship in 1939, this saved up to 6,000 tons of displacement. It also created a standard configuration from which to compare ships built under the Treaty. The British were the strictest in honoring the Treaty, actually reducing armor, armament or speed when designs exceeded the Treaty. The US also honored the Treaty, except, arguably, when it came to the Saratoga class CVs. However, as time went on, the USN would more closely define what represented a ship ready for sea at war, by reducing ammo loads or not counting the weight of equipment which was aboard for "peacetime" only. The japanese "cheated" almost from the start, declaring the IJNS Akagi and Kaga at 27,500 tons, when they clearly displaced from records revealed after the war over 33,000 tons. Constant failure to correctly calculate weights and the need to continually rebuild ships as weight savings measures failed resulted in significant excess displacement. As an example, while still constrained by Treaty (Japan opted out in December 1934 with an effective date of December 1936), the IJN rebuilt the Nagato class battleships, the standard displacement of which went from 32,500 to 39,120 tons. The Treaty allowed only an additional 3,000 tons for rebuilding pre-Treaty capital ships. Italy was also violating the Treaties. An Italian CA suffered hull damage and had to dock at Gibralter and her standard displacement turned out to exceed the limits by over 10%. Germany was not a party to the Treaties until the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Treaty, but still cheated. Usually a ship is listed with its light, standard, full and emergency loads. See Freidman's references on US battleships and on carriers for examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.39.41.2 (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nile Kinnick Death

MBK004 cancelled my add about the fatal incident of legendary college football player Nigel Kinnick because of lacking of reliable source. The death of Kinnick is an historical fact and while adding it I linked Kinnick name with his wikipedia page in which a full paragraph of details about his death while serving on the Lexington can be found Allegroconfuoco (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nile Kinnick Died on the second Lexington (CV-16). Scotisle (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Very Proud Daughter

my daddy was on the lexington when it was sunk in the battle of the coral sea... he is still alive today...I am very greatful we still have him with us.... and I always make sure to tell him thank you for his service whilst he was protecting our future.... a future that had not even been thought of by him, at that time....because he was just a child himself!!!! I just want to say thank you and God Bless you, to you all that have , and are , and will protect Our Freedom yesterday ,today , tommorow & forever!!!! Thank you!!!! and daddy i love you forever, Yours Very Truly , An Extremely Proud Baby Girl...I Love you Daddy...Love, Nancy....tucson,az —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.96.221.253 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

More on Pre-War Service

I think that it is significant to note the following, which I found here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/02.htm

"From 17 December 1929 to 16 January 1930 USS Lexington supplied electrical power to Tacoma, Washington, when this city suffered a power shortage. The electricity from the carrier totaled more than 4.25 million kilowatt-hours."

Unless I am wrong, this marks the first time in history that a naval vessel of any country provided electrical power to a city. CrashRiley (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wreck?

Has the wreck of the Lexington ever been discovered/examined? At least she's one of the largest ship sunk during WWII. Would be quite interesting for the article! Greetings Ogbader (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it’s included in the article. She wasn’t found until after you posted this. Jhurley85 (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, 300 sailors left to die, then torpedoed?

The article includes the following statements: "Unfortunately, as many as 300 men were trapped below decks and, although herculean efforts were made to save them, they remained unreachable because of the raging fires. ...Despite those trapped on board, to prevent enemy capture, the destroyer Phelps ... fired two torpedoes into the Lexington's hull. With one last heavy explosion, Lexington sank ..." Presumably the Lexington was torpedoed because of the risk that it might not sink and would be captured, with the 300 sailors still aboard (dead or alive).

I think one would agree that this would be a controversial action (to say the least). Nevertheless, the author cites no sources for these statements. Furthermore, these assertions are inconsistent with (a) the official death toll for the Lexington, less than 300, which would include everyone who was killed in the initial torpedo and bomb strikes, and subsequent fires and explosions, before the ship was abandoned, and (b) the officers' reports of the action, which are available on-line and contain no mention of this aspect of the ship's sinking, and in the case of the captain's report, include the statement that he toured the ship after everyone else had been evacuated and could find no evidence of anyone left alive on it.

Unless the author can produce reliable sources for the assertion that up to 300 sailors were abandoned on the Lexington, and were still on it when the ship was deliberately sunk, I recommend deleting those statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtisCT (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sailors on board the Lexington were rescued by nearby ships. Jhurley85 (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Those statements were removed after your post. Jhurley85 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Johnson Island

There's a sentence currently that reads: "Lexington launched several scout planes to search for the Japanese that day and remained at sea between Johnson Island and Hawaii". When you click on the Johnson Island link though, it refers to some place in West Virginia, so it seems whoever wrote this made a mistake. Is there actually a Johnson Island in the Pacific Ocean? I'm assuming the author actually meant Johnston Atoll, but I figured I'd try getting this verified before changing it —Masterblooregard (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that Johnston Atoll is meant although that was not the usual term used during the ship's lifetime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Power Supplied to Tacoma

In the Service History section the statement

"The ship's generators provided a total of 4,520,960 kilowatts from 17 December to 16 January 1930 until melting snow and rain brought the reservoirs up to the level needed to generate sufficient power for the city." uses the wrong units; kilowatts is a RATE of power. From the context, the statment should use kilowatt hours, which is a QUANITY of ENERGY. Someone with access to the cite for the paragraph (Anderson and Baker, p. 313) should check for the proper units and correct quantity. A sentence earlier in the Lexington article "Six 750-kilowatt (1,010 hp) electric generators were installed in the upper levels of the two main turbine compartments to provide power to meet the ship's hotel load requirements." implies that the total rate of electrical generation was 4,500 kilowatts; that would produce a maximum of 4,500 KW X 24 hours X 30 days =3,375,000 kilowatt hours. That is less than the quantity of KWH supplied to Tacoma (and even less than THAT quantity would be availale considering the portion of the electrical power generated would be consumed for ship operations.) Thus the sentence ""The ship's generators provided a total of 4,520,960 kilowatts from 17 December to 16 January 1930 until melting snow and rain brought the reservoirs up to the level needed to generate sufficient power for the city." uses patently incorrect units and a numerical quantity that exceeds the Lexington's electrical generation capacity.

Not a major point, but still, unencyclopedic. And if the cite contains the same units and quantity, then it is also in error.

Neonorange (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll check on the kwh issue; you're probably right though. As to the ship's total electrical power generation capability, you've missed the four main generators of the turboelectric plant which were much larger.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an excellent Warship International article from the '70s that discusses this event and, indeed, the power was drawn from the primary electric motors powered by the ship's main powerplant's turbines. The advantage of TE machinery was that the turbines could be run at optimum speed and shaft revolutions adjusted through the electric motors
. The city paid the USN for the fuel and repair costs used in this interesting version of Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.39.41.2 (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say whether the main generators and motors of the Lexington and the Saratoga used AC (alternating current) or DC (direct current). There are advantages and disadvantages of both kinds of electric power, especially for short-range transmission such as in a ship. This is not like transmitting electric power from Niagara Falls to New York City, for which Nikola Tesla pioneered the use of three-phase AC, including three-phase generators and three-phase transformers, as well as three-phase transmission lines.

Actually, the manufacturers of the generators and the motors should be listed. Many of there articles about ships list things like "Babcock & Wilcox model ABC boilers and model XYZ steam turbines, blah-blah.47.215.180.7 (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverse Engines Maneuver

In the first paragraph under the article heading World War II is the sentence "With the Marine aircraft aboard, Lexington's flight deck was very congested and he decided to reverse the polarity of the ship's electric motors and steam full speed astern in order to launch a new CAP and then resume forward motion to recover his current CAP.' These electric motors were almost assuredly 3-phase 60 Hz AC motors (see section on providing electrical power for the city of Tacoma, Washington). Reversing the motors rotational direction would then be a matter of swapping two of the three phases. Not strictly a change in polarity, but a change in phase order.
The sentence would be more correct if revised to "With the Marine aircraft aboard, Lexington's flight deck was very congested and he decided to reverse the electrical phase of the ship's electric motors thereby reversing the propellors rotation and providing full speed astern to launch a new CAP and then resume forward motion to recover his current CAP.'
I can not immediately find a supporting cite that goes into this level of detail, but that is how 3-phase AC motors are reversed and that easy reversal is one of the advantages of electric motor propulsion for ships.

Neonorange (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that my source used "polarity" when talking about the ease of reversing the propellers, but I'd have to dig it up to confirm that. The important thing is that no turbines were involved since they can't reverse, by definition.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not very much detail, but Lundstrom says, "At 1353, he reversed the Lexington's powerful turboelectric drive and maneuvered his ship astern to secure sufficient wind over the deck.[11] Then at 1357 came the exceedingly rare sight of a stern launch, as six VF-2 Brewster Buffaloes took off over her fantail." (Page 23 of The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway.) Binksternet (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You may find Turboelectric Drive in American Capital Ships by Joseph Czarnecki (Updated 31 January 2001)at http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.htm of interest. Neonorange (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the important thing for me about the whole bit is that the turbo-electric's ease in going in reverse, in contrast to turbine ships, was essential to allow the ship to get up enough speed to actually allow the fighters to take off. And I see no reason why it should be simplified to the IP's verbiage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC

At you can find a 1922 publication Electric Ship Propulsion that covers electric propulsion of USS Lexington CV-2 era warships. It's sort of hard to follow as the URL is for a Google digitization; the diagrams and illustrations are missing. Paragraph 143 USS New Mexico in OCRed document reads:

"The reversing switches are of the laminated brush type and are oil break. They have auxiliary contacts and are intended to be large enough to break full load current, but in the actual operation this is never done, as the field is always opened before moving them. The ahead and astern switches are mounted in Fio. 73.- the same oil tank. This switch is shown in Fig. 75. It will be seen that there is a brush on each side, the two arms being pivoted at the center. The arrangement of the levers is such that one of these arms is moved up and the other down at the same time, one closing for the ahead direction and when, moved in the opposite way the other closes for the astern direction. The function of this switch is merely to reverse the connections of two leads (one phase) to the motor."

If we can assume the Lexington CV-2, laid down as a cruiser of the same era, uses similar electric propulsion equipment then phase reversal is the method used to move astern. Neonorange (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Date of discovery

The image of the anti-aircraft gun shown here is watermarked 2018-03-04. And the title frame of the video accompanying Paul Allen's tweet states that the ship was located March 4. Kablammo (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Allen didn’t find the Lexington. The project funded by him did, but, yes, it was on March 4 2018. Jhurley85 (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Lessons learned

I believe that after Lexington's loss the USN altered its carriers and the design of those under construction to limit the spread of fires. I also have a vague recollection that the NYFD was consulted on the matter. I don't know where I may have read this (I will look). Such information would be useful information here, so if anyone else knows, please add it. Kablammo (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

See also section

I know we generally don't mess with Featured articles but if nobody objects I'd like to add a See also section to this article. - Samf4u (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? What do you want to add?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I thought we could add List of aircraft carriers, List of ships of World War II and List of United States Navy losses in World War II. - Samf4u (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see what utility those lists provide. Clicking on the aircraft carrier article should allow you to reach List of aircraft carriers with a single additional click. List of ships of WW II is simply too big to be useful and the last one lacks context if you wanted to compare other American carrier losses to this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Yorktown (CV-10) and USS Hornet (CV-12) all have See also sections. If you don't want one here I won't pursue further. - Samf4u (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)